"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
02/16/2016 at 10:37 • Filed to: None
1
7|
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
02/16/2016 at 10:37 • Filed to: None | 1
| 7 |
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
The verdict is, 89 provides a definite and consistent increase over 87 of on average about 6%. For me that means 1.1l/100 km, or 0.86 Imperial MPG. 89 is between 6-7% more money than 87, which means I’m paying about 1% more per tank, or between 60-80 cents. Small price to pay for a better running engine and more power. Also, more potential for tuning—see the link in the comments of my old post.
91, so far, seems a dead loss. I’m seeing the same numbers on 89 and 91. I’m putting one more tank through, and then unless I see some major changes I’m sticking to 89. Whether the engine could make use of it if it was tuned for it, I don’t know.
Bear in mind these numbers are all on winter gas. I have a very small sample of similar conditions on summer gas as I drove a lot more highway on random tanks and I didn’t start using 89 until the fall when mileage was already starting to drop off. The last post’s numbers were based off 2 tanks of 89 from last winter. 1 tank got me 3.5% better, the other got 7. Driving conditions/city-highway mileage/behaviour were about the same on each.
I’m planning on getting the truck tuned as soon as the winter gas gets put away, so expect one more follow-up post.
450X_FTW
> Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
02/16/2016 at 11:15 |
|
Did you base your fuel consumption on the digital readout or on the SAE measurement procedure? Yes there really is an SAE measurement procedure for comparing digital readout to actual fuel consumption
|
Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
> 450X_FTW
02/16/2016 at 11:17 |
|
I have no digital readout, I was basing it on liters consumed/kilometers travelled. Which is statistically accurate, anyway.
What is the SAE method?
Scott
> Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
02/16/2016 at 11:23 |
|
Just curious what kind of car you drive? Also how many miles does it have on it? Higher octanes can benefit high mileage cars. Where do you live, or what is your climate, specifically is it extremely humid, or extremely dry, as humidity has an effect on how your car reacts to a different octane of fuel.
I’ve mentioned this in another thread recently. Car and Driver magazine did a test on a variety of cars back in the late 80's I believe. They wanted to see what cars made use of higher octane fuels. I’ve not seen any other study, and since it’s so old, and things like knock sensors and electronic ignitions are far more standard then they where then this may not be as applicable. That said even with a knock sensor and electronic ignition, the manufacturer does not set it up to allow a wide range of octane than having the right hardware does not matter.
from the CD article, basically most American cars did not benefit from higher octane fuels. Some Asian cars did, but mostly the higher end brands. Almost all the European brands benefited.
It would be interesting to see a repeat of this test, since cars have changed so much over the decades.
It's tempting to imagine all the opponauts submitting the information, and while probably useful, it could introduce to many variables, like different environments, different fuel blends, even how old their cars are.
|
Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
> Scott
02/16/2016 at 11:37 |
|
2010 Colorado 5.3 V8. Live in Ontario, Canada. There would be a little bit of 4x4 use in the snow with either grade, so that evens out. Climate is about as dead average as you can get. Last year was cold and moisture was snow (but relatively dry), this year was warmer and wetter (rain this time). Last years numbers were mostly 87, this year was all 89, but the fact that my numbers from those 2 tanks last year are mirrored by my latest results lead me to believe that it’s a fair comparison. 77000 km/48000 miles on the truck.
|
450X_FTW
> Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
02/16/2016 at 11:41 |
|
When you fill up, fill until it clicks, wait 15 seconds, pull the handle again until it clicks, wait 5 seconds, pull the handle until it clicks. That helps reduce the variation between pumps and when each shuts off
|
Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
> 450X_FTW
02/16/2016 at 11:49 |
|
I generally do one click after it shuts off, but I don’t wait. I’ll have to do it this way from now on. Unfortunately that means my results are going to be skewed slightly now, but in the long run I don’t think it matters much—it’s all an average, and as long as I know how far I’ve gone and how many liters I’ve used it should be pretty close.
|
450X_FTW
> Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
02/16/2016 at 11:55 |
|
Most don’t know it exists. We had to use the procedure when validating the MPG readout on test vehicles before putting them into production